The preamble: I credit Dallas Willard with giving new life to what should be one of the most obvious truths available to all mankind when he said - of truth - that, "Reality is that thing you run into when you're wrong." Dallas was trying to contrast the concept of "relative truth" and "absolute truth" as he went on to give a parable which I will paraphrase. He talked about a man driving a car and running out of gas. The man, not really comfortable with the inconvenience of his current reality decides to engage in a series of denials. But, as Dallas puts it, no matter how much our shared reality offends our sensibilities, no matter how much sympathy we garner from others about how we shouldn't be beholden to a reality that is so at odds with our own self-interests, no matter how much we protest it: that reality continues to exist. It is that objective reality that should return as the standard for our labels of "truth".
The case: As a history major I had to take a class my first semester at the university to teach me how to be a historian. In this class our professor had to lay the foundation for "historical inquiry" by training us to see the difference between fact, inference, and opinion. You might think to yourself: "wow, seems kind of obvious what the differences are." You might be right. What I noticed during that grueling process (which, at some levels, took all semester) is how unable most people - myself included - are unable to separate empirical fact from inferences and opinions stated as though they were facts. As it says on the sidebar of the blog, I've come to the conclusion that truth has three essential and core elements: it is universal, it is factual, and it is objective. Let's unpack that here for a second.
By claiming that truth is universal, I'm not insisting that it is absolute. The word "absolute" carries with it a stigma that I won't inject into our, hopefully, shared vision of reality. By attributing that it is universal I'm simply characterizing truth as something that must apply equally to all at all times. That means if something is really true for you, then it is also true for me. If it is really true, then that truth almost certainly transcends time. In this way is truth different than fact which can be tied, intrinsically, to specific points in time.
While truth and fact are different in certain aspects of their nature, truth is factual. Truth must be rooted in facts for it to be actual truth. This is where so much truth gets confused and lost for so many of us. As I mentioned in my last post on ideologies and "isms", many of us filter truth and reality through our ideological constructs and we begin to claim that things are true simply because we believe them - not because the reality supports them. I'm not saying that having a belief is wrong so please don't misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that having a belief can be dangerous because you may find, at some point, that your belief is actually at odds with the truth... and that is a life-shattering moment. This is true of all ideologies (of which religions are a considerable member). We see this confusion of truth and belief or opinion in mediums as muddled as car dealership commercials and as sacred as commentary on holy texts. But the reality of it all is that factuality determines truth, not belief. I can no more say that the Christian Bible is "inerrant" holy writ than I can say that so-and-so Ford dealership is the best place in the world to buy a car. The available and empirical facts simply do not support either statement as truth. (I promise to return to this statement in a later post because I know that it might be something of a 'bombshell'.)
Perhaps most importantly for us to remember is that truth is objective. Truth has no agenda to advance, no ax to grind, no interest to protect. Truth simply is... it just exists. As I've mentioned before, the enemy of truth is ideology which is rooted in ego-centrism and the preservation of one's own self-interests. Therefore, it stands to reason, that one will often find truth quite at odds with one's own self-interests.
It is at this starting point of truth as objective and factual reality that our individual and collective journey can begin. I'm not sure if it is a fact or if it is true, but I believe that you - the reader - are likely to be interested in finding some kind of truth in your life. If that is true of you then your first step on this path to finding truth (which will always go deeper and farther than we expect it to, feel comfortable with, and can afford) is to make a solemn pledge of allegiance to the truth. Be prepared to ask questions that make your stomach turn. Questions that are truly unthinkable. Questions that will very likely offend your morals, values, and your sensibilities. Questions that may shake the foundation of your identity and your view of reality. And then prepare yourself for the answers which will almost certainly do all of that and more.
The questions: What values are so deeply ingrained in you that you consider them "non-negotiable"? Are those values rooted in belief or in objective and factual reality? (Be honest with yourself.) In what areas of your life have you been like the man that ran out of gas? Perhaps most importantly: how far are you willing to go to find out the truth?
The Unvarnished Doctrine
14 years ago
3 comments:
In a first pass of these questions, working from initial thought, I would say the only value that deeply ingrained is my dislike for being wrong or uninformed. To the point where, yes, I would delude myself to believeing I was still right. And I will admit that I have done this, without shame.
Although, with some age and experience, I am more...pliable....then I once was. I am willing to hear you out, and if you can prove to me that you are in the right and I am in the wrong, I am more than willing to make the changes to move forward.
I feel that if you are honest with yourself about finding truth, then there is no obstacle that can not be overcome.
But like I said, this is just a first pass...more thought is needed.
I can say this: you're not alone in your willingness (conscious or otherwise) to delude yourself into believing you're right for the fear of being wrong.
This is what I call the "self-interest". I'm sure there are a half-dozen different ways to put it - including the age-old favorites: "evil" and "sin". The self-interest is incredibly self-deceptive. It's part of the ideological pattern - no critical self-examination that threatens the foundational structure and framework of the ideologically derived identity can be tolerated by an ideologue.
This is why you can't have a civil "values-based" conversation with an ideologue. It **always** becomes an argument (as I'm sure you're hearkening back to our old conversations and my "infuriating zealotry" - as you so correctly put it). You're not just challenging an idea with an ideologue. You're not just examining a belief. You're not just asking a tough question... you're threatening their entire identity.
The truth, however, is brutally honest. In regards to the self-interest the truth is the slowest and most painful tool for a metaphysical "suicide". It will, quite seriously, cut away at everything you thought you could count on and leave you cold and naked in the middle of the wilderness.
Even though he did it within the framework of an ideology (rationalism), Rene Descartes' "Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy" is a handbook for personal ideological deconstruction. But even Descartes admits that there were some aspects of his already preconceived ideology that were "non-negotiable" and he left them alone. This, of course, was his mistake and where his "ism" showed its ugly head.
The truth, as it is, demands from all of us that we give no quarter to our selves. That we expose every psychological "nook" and every intellectual "cranny" to it. That we deconstruct every "notion" that we can (as the Quakers would've said it) and start from absolute scratch.
Though I admire and appreciate your willingness to make changes and move forward - I'm certainly not trying to prove you "wrong" and me "right". I'm also not trying to prove much at all - except the danger of ideology and the unmitigated supremacy of the truth. But, unlike an ideology, those two notions don't require much "selling". Regardless of denial - reality is reality... it's simply inescapable. As Dallas Willard once said: "Reality is what you run into when you're wrong." It's what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.
What do you think about Jesus Jeremy. I would like to read you post about your thoughts on Jesus.
Post a Comment